Delay and Denial: Court Dismisses Last-Minute Bid in 'Sky Force' Copyright Clash
In a high-stakes legal battle over copyright infringement, the Plaintiff, Sandeep Gangatkar, sought an urgent injunction to prevent the release of the film Sky Force[1] The film, originally scheduled for release on January 24, 2025, was alleged to have copied the Plaintiff’s original script titled ‘Fire Bird’. The Defendants denied the claims, arguing that the Plaintiff had delayed his legal action despite ample public knowledge of the film’s details since 2023. The Bombay High Court ultimately rejected the Plaintiff’s plea for ad-interim relief, emphasizing the untimeliness of the case, as it was filed just days before the film’s scheduled release.
Facts of the Case
The Plaintiff filed the concerned lawsuit seeking an ad interim injunction against the release of the film Sky Force. The Plaintiff contended that the film infringed on his Copyright for an original script titled ‘Fire Bird’, which was allegedly his original literary work. According to him, the central concept of both, the movie and the script was based on the historical event of India’s 1965 retaliatory bombing of Pakistan’s Sargodha airfield.
Further, the Plaintiff claimed that he became aware of the Defendants’ alleged attempt to violate his Copyright on January 8, 2025, when the trailer for the film Sky Force was released. It was contended that the script of ‘Fire Bird’ had been sent to Defendant No. 1 in 2014 as part of a Memorandum of Understanding, giving the Defendants access to the story line. The Plaintiff argued that upon noticing multiple similarities between his work and the Sky Force trailer, he sought immediate redress from the Court, after the Defendants initially acknowledged the alleged infringement but later rejected the accusation.
The Defendants, on the other hand, raised strong objections to the delay in the Plaintiff’s legal actions. They argued that, despite information about the film, Sky Force being publicly available since October 2023, the Plaintiff only approached the Court now. The Defendants raised serious questions on the timing of the lawsuit, especially after the Plaintiff himself acknowledged being aware of the movie’s plot since 2023. The Defendants relied on several legal precedents wherein it is settled that a Court will not entertain urgent relief requests when a Plaintiff comes at the last minute. Further, the Defendants submitted Affidavits and supporting documents proving that the plot of the film, Sky Force, had been widely discussed in the media, making information about the same freely accessible well before the Plaintiff filed his legal challenge. Additionally, the Defendants contended that, as an experienced professional in the entertainment industry, the Plaintiff should have acted sooner.
Analysis:
The central legal issue in this case revolves around the Plaintiff’s delay in seeking interim relief and whether that delay should impact the Court’s decision to grant such relief. The Court, after referring to multiple legal precedents, concluded that in matters involving delay, it is crucial to assess whether the Plaintiff acted promptly upon becoming aware of the alleged infringement. The Court also emphasized that the delay in filing for relief could significantly influence the outcome of the application for interim relief.
The Plaintiff argued that there was no delay in filing the application for relief, contending that the public domain materials relied upon by the Defendants did not reveal the full story of the film. According to the Plaintiff, it was only upon the release of the film’s trailer that he became aware of how the Defendants had incorporated elements from his original work, ‘Fire Bird’. To support this, the Plaintiff’s counsel referred to the ruling in Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation v. Sohail Maklai Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. [2] and the order in Jyoti Kapoor & Ors. v. Kunal Kohli & Ors .[3] However, the Defendants’ Senior Counsel pointed out that the judgment in Jyoti Kapoor had been overturned by a Division Bench, making it irrelevant to the present case.
In contrast, the Senior Counsel for the Defendants referred to various legal precedents, including Sushila Sharma v. Madhur Bhandarkar & Ors. [4] and presented documents from the limited affidavits to substantiate their arguments. These documents outlined the public availability of materials such as teasers, announcements, and articles related to the film Sky Force since 2023, which detailed key aspects of the film’s plot and casting.
The Court noted that the Plaintiff himself acknowledged in his plaint that he had viewed the teaser for Sky Force in October 2023, yet did not perceive any actionable infringement at that time. The Court emphasized the well-established legal principle that a Plaintiff must act expeditiously when seeking urgent relief, especially in cases where an event such as the release of a film is imminent. Upon reviewing the evidence presented, including the teaser from October 2023, the Court concluded that the Plaintiff had ample opportunity to take legal action but had delayed doing so until just days before the film’s release.
Furthermore, the Court considered the substantial financial investment in the film, with over Rs. 250 crores invested and various theatrical rights already booked. The Court carefully weighed the potential harm to the Defendants if a last-minute injunction were granted, balancing it against the Plaintiff’s claims.
The Court also scrutinized the Plaintiff’s reliance on previous case law, specifically the Twentieth Century Fox case, and found that it was not applicable to the present matter. In Twentieth Century Fox, the Plaintiff had been notified about the Defendant's film in August 2010 and had engaged in correspondence prior to filing the lawsuit [5]. In contrast, in this case, the Plaintiff had provided his script to Defendant No. 1 in 2014, fully aware of its contents. When the film’s features were publicly announced in October 2023, with Defendant No. 1 credited as the writer and co-director, the Plaintiff should have acted promptly. Therefore, the reliance on the Twentieth Century Fox case was deemed inappropriate for this case.
Judgments
The Court rejected the Plaintiff’s request for ad-interim relief, finding merit in the Defendants’ argument that, based on the Plaintiff’s own pleadings, he could not claim ignorance of the publicly available information about Sky Force, which had been accessible since October 2023. The Plaintiff, a well-established professional in the entertainment industry with two decades of experience as a creative director, scriptwriter, and producer, was deemed to have had sufficient opportunity to be aware of the film’s details. Given his credentials, the Court found it implausible for the Plaintiff to assert that he was unaware of the film’s existence or its content. The Plaintiff’s delay in seeking legal action, particularly when the film was on the verge of release, was also a critical factor in the Court’s decision. The Court further noted that granting the Plaintiff’s request for an injunction at this late stage would cause irreparable harm to the Defendants.
Additionally, the Court observed that - the Plaintiff referred to a sum of Rs. 10 crores related to discussions with the Defendants. While the prayer clause did not explicitly specify the amount of copyright relief sought, the Plaintiff’s request for the disclosure of profits and revenues generated from Sky Force indicated an intention to seek monetary relief at a later stage. The Court found that the Plaintiff’s delay in pursuing relief was significant and undermined the urgency of the request.
In light of these factors, the Court held that the balance of convenience clearly lied in favour the Defendants. As a result, the Plaintiff was not entitled to an injunction to prevent the release of the film. The Defendants were directed to file their full reply affidavits within four weeks, while the Plaintiff was granted two weeks to file any rejoinder.
Conclusion:
This case underscores the well-known adage, "time is of the essence". The Court emphasized the importance of timely action, regardless of the nature of the suit, particularly when it concerns the release of a film or other creative work. The Court’s decision reinforces that Plaintiffs seeking urgent relief must act promptly and not wait until the final moment, especially when substantial public domain materials are readily available that could have alerted them to potential infringement. The rejection of the Plaintiff’s request for an injunction aligns with the principle that the balance of convenience must favor the party that would suffer the most harm if relief is granted. In this case, the Court recognized the significant financial and commercial stakes involved in the film industry, where substantial investments are made well in advance of a film's release. The Court, in making its judgment, took a holistic view of the matter, considering both the timing of the Plaintiff’s action and the potential harm to the Defendants.
References:
Sandeep Gangatkar Versus Sandeep Kewlani & Ors. INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 2143 OF 2025 IN COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L) NO. 2130 OF 2025
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation v/s. Sohail Maklai Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., 2010 (7) Mh.L.J. 338
Jyoti Kapoor & Anr. v/s. Kunal Kohli & Ors., 2015 SCC OnLine Bom 3373
Sushila Sharma v/s. Madhur Bhandarkar & Ors. (order dated 4th November 2009 passed in Notice of Motion No. 3391 of 2009 in Suit No. 2417 of 2009
Supra note 2
Comments